Ground move debate

[creaner]

Having read through the previous posts on the proposed ground move I thought I'd start a new thread to discuss the merits, or otherwise, on the proposal. Whilst it is tempting to make fun of those who take an opposing point of view I think we may do ourselves no favours in the debate by personalising the issue. It doesn't show our arguement in a good light and may well give the moral high ground to those who are in the business of proving us wrong!
This won't be decided on public opinion alone but I'm sure it will have an impact and many "nuetral" people will come across this board looking for reasons why they should fall one side or the other- lets not give them a reason to think we are a bunch of moaners or whiners! (including me).
We can win the arguement if we present it in the correct way and I'm sure those who visit this board to get ammunition against our case won't hesitate to use anything they can to bolster their case- - I know I would in their position- so lets get this bandwagon moving!!.
Anyway, C'mon yoooo Bluuess

[wh]

I really can't see a downside to the nunnery way project for the City of Worcester, I think Michael Foster sums it up perfectly in his interview with WN.

[stevebourne]

Yea but we are fans so we aernt objective. If you hated football and enjoyed living in a quiet village on the outskirts of Worcester would you still feel the same?

[StopfordianWCFC]

stevebourne said:

Yea but we are fans so we aernt objective. If you hated football and enjoyed living in a quiet village on the outskirts of Worcester would you still feel the same?

I think I still would be if I were talking about a site sandwiched between a motorway and a dual carriageway and crossed by a power line. I'm not sure what the previously discussed resident of "Whittington" is so concerned about. The main village is set back off the main road, down roads that no football fan would ever want to venture down. I can only assume he lives in the couple of properties on the other side of the (new) A44.

With respect to objecting to the new stadium on its own. Well, that is just pointless, as the land is allocated for that use in the Local Plan and so in the Council's view the principle of that element is effectively a done deal.

The only area for 'attack' is the 'enabling development' and that is for St Modwens and the Council to debate. Clearly there is some link between the stadium and the enabling development, but to object to the stadium as a concept is just wasting time and ink.

IMHO

[Tim Munslow]

I still think we should rebut Andrew Guy's party-pooping letter in Wednesday's Worcester News, and indeed, as I write, I am in the process of writing a reply.

We cannot let his letter pass unchallenged; otherwise it gives the impression he is the one with right on his side, when that is not the case.

[creaner]

timmunslow said:

I still think we should rebut Andrew Guy's party-pooping letter in Wednesday's Worcester News, and indeed, as I write, I am in the process of writing a reply.

We cannot let his letter pass unchallenged; otherwise it gives the impression he is the one with right on his side, when that is not the case.

Tim, exactly the point I was trying to make. Counter the arguement with appropriate response and be positive in our support.

[Tim Munslow]

Said letter duly written and will be posted thro' the WN letter-box tomorrow to avoid Royal Mail strike.

Of course whether WN chooses to print said reply is out of my hands.

The text of it prior to being edited by the WN (which they will almost certainly do) reads as follows:-

I am afraid Andrew Guy’s letter on the above subject in the Worcester News of 10th October cannot go unchallenged. (Incidentally, it would also win a prize for “Party Pooper of the Year” if there was one.)

Firstly, let us examine his credentials for opposition. He apparently lives in Whittington, a village 1.2 miles from the site (I clocked it this morning), currently surrounded by the horrendous traffic from the M5 and A4440 ring road. Is he seriously suggesting that a football ground that far away from his village is going to erode a lifestyle that has already been so seriously compromised by that traffic and its attendant noise and pollution? Perhaps he might ask residents currently living 1.2 miles from St George’s Lane if they are remotely inconvenienced by the noise or traffic emanating from matches at the current ground; if he can find three such people I would be surprised – no make that astounded!

Secondly, he has his facts wrong on the primacy of tenure issue. What he does not seem to have grasped is that whilst the rules on this issue for current members of either the rugby or football bodies may not prohibit ground-sharing, the rules for admission to either body do stipulate that the applicant must have primacy of tenure. Unfair? Of course it is, but then members of exclusive bodies always do make it difficult for newcomers. Presumably this is the very reason why a ground-sharing arrangement was rejected as being untenable for either party at least two years ago.

Thirdly, he cites the “M5 protection corridor” as being the bulwark to stop “...urban sprawl” and “Worcester’s slide towards a commuter dormitory for Birmingham”. The same protection corridor which already has a cattle market on it (which is in use far more days of the year than WCFC ever will be)? And what “slide”: Worcester already IS a commuter dormitory. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Why not save your efforts to fight the Norton J7 Waste plan Mr Guy? Now there’s something that really will affect your village.

[Deleted]

Good one Tim.

[dave]

Nice one Tim.

I would still get more satisfaction from trampling his dahlias and blocking in his Mondeo in though!

Each to their own.

[Deleted]

"blocking in his Mondeo" Is this a euphemism?

[stevebourne]

Mr Guy lives between Whittington and County Hall and he's less than half a mile from the site. Why not email the letter to Worcester News? or use the online form to get it in? get in in quicker the more the better.

[colinlayland]

Excellent letter Tim, but hasn't the recycling plant battle been fought and lost by the objectors? Wasn't planning permission given by the County Council a few months back?

[StopfordianWCFC]

colinlayland said:

Excellent letter Tim, but hasn't the recycling plant battle been fought and lost by the objectors? Wasn't planning permission given by the County Council a few months back?

Yes

[wh]

colinlayland said:

Excellent letter Tim, but hasn't the recycling plant battle been fought and lost by the objectors? Wasn't planning permission given by the County Council a few months back?

that doesnt matter to these people, they have probably only just found out.

[niels]

You are always going to get people who don't want something in their back yard. Development around that area will enivitably make him think that his house price will level off or drop. However that happens to people all the time and as it is in the Local Development Plan then he stands no chance of success.

Wonder how they will re-route the electricity pylons?

[Mark]

niels said:

Wonder how they will re-route the electricity pylons?

On several of the plans of the site that I have seen, the pylons are still there so I think they are going to build around them. I know that an enquiry was made regarding the diversion of the line or its replacement with underground cable but the cost of such work, particularly the latter option may be prohibitive in this instance.

[stevebourne]

niels said:

You are always going to get people who don't want something in their back yard. Development around that area will enivitably make him think that his house price will level off or drop. However that happens to people all the time and as it is in the Local Development Plan then he stands no chance of success.

Wonder how they will re-route the electricity pylons?

He stands no chance of success opposeing a football ground. The Spetchley residents will oppose the development so Guy will do the same.

[Tim Munslow]

What Spetchley residents? There's only about three houses between the motorway and the Spetchley island. Can't be more than a dozen people.